Re:NYC Wants You to Stop Taking Traffic Cam Selfies, But Her...
by JumpCrisscross on Sunday December 15, 2024 @02:14PM
(#42425306)
> having "intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits" (my quote from earlier in the thread) is clearly less subjective than just "art" which has no inherent meaning
Does it? Aesthetics and experience are as inherently subjective as art. We're having a contemplative experience in this discussion, after all.
> appreciate the fact that people are taught as much these days
Most people have zero art education.
> not arguing about what is and isn't art makes it so "anything is art" for which a corollary is "nothing is specifically art" and therefore art has diminished value
I'm not convinced. One can meaningfully discuss the ontology of art--and its meaning, impact and value--without needing to precisely delineate its boundary.
Some things are absolutely art. Some things are probably not. In between is ambiguity. That doesn't diminish the value of anything; hell, that ambiguity applies to almost everything we treasure, from literal treasure and love to the internal distinctions between forms of art.
Does it? Aesthetics and experience are as inherently subjective as art. We're having a contemplative experience in this discussion, after all.
> appreciate the fact that people are taught as much these days
Most people have zero art education.
> not arguing about what is and isn't art makes it so "anything is art" for which a corollary is "nothing is specifically art" and therefore art has diminished value
I'm not convinced. One can meaningfully discuss the ontology of art--and its meaning, impact and value--without needing to precisely delineate its boundary.
Some things are absolutely art. Some things are probably not. In between is ambiguity. That doesn't diminish the value of anything; hell, that ambiguity applies to almost everything we treasure, from literal treasure and love to the internal distinctions between forms of art.